Durability of small-for-size living donor allografts

Management of Established Small-for-size Syndrome in Post Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Medical, Radiological, and Surgical Interventions: Guidelines From the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) following living donor liver transplantation is a complication that can lead to devastating outcomes such as prolonged poor graft function and possibly graft loss. Because of the concern about the syndrome, some transplants of mismatched grafts may not be performed. Portal hyperperfusion of a small graft and hyperdynamic splanchnic circulation are recognized as main pathogenic factors for the syndrome. Management of established SFSS is guided by the severity of the presentation with the initial focus on pharmacological therapy to modulate portal flow and provide supportive care to the patient with the goal of facilitating graft regeneration and recovery. When medical management fails or condition progresses with impending dysfunction or even liver failure, interventional radiology (IR) and/or surgical interventions to reduce portal overperfusion should be considered. Although most patients have good outcomes with medical, IR, and/or surgical management that allow graft regeneration, the risk of graft loss increases dramatically in the setting of bilirubin >10 mg/dL and INR>1.6 on postoperative day 7 or isolated bilirubin >20 mg/dL on postoperative day 14. Retransplantation should be considered based on the overall clinical situation and the above postoperative laboratory parameters. The following recommendations focus on medical and IR/surgical management of SFSS as well as considerations and timing of retransplantation when other therapies fail.

Impact of small-for-size liver grafts on medium-term and long-term graft survival in living donor liver transplantation: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Small-for-size grafts (SFSGs) in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) could optimize donor postoperative outcomes and also expand the potential donor pool. Evidence on whether SFSGs would affect medium-term and long-term recipient graft survival is lacking.

AIM

To evaluate the impact of small-for-size liver grafts on medium-term and long-term graft survival in adult to adult LDLT.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed by searching eligible studies published before January 24, 2019 on PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases. The primary outcomes were 3-year and 5-year graft survival. Incidence of small-for-size syndrome and short term mortality were also extracted.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis is reported according to the guidelines of the PRISMA 2009 Statement. Seven retrospective observational studies with a total of 1821 LDLT recipients were included in the meta-analysis. SFSG is associated with significantly poorer medium-term graft survival. The pooled odds ratio for 3-year graft survival was 1.58 [95% confidence interval 1.10-2.29, P = 0.014]. On the other hand, pooled results of the studies showed that SFSG had no significant discriminatory effect on 5-year graft survival with an odds ratio of 1.31 (95% confidence interval 0.87-1.97, P = 0.199). Furthermore, incidence of small-for-size syndrome detected in recipients of SFSG ranged from 0-11.4% in the included studies.

CONCLUSION

SFSG is associated with inferior medium-term but not long-term graft survival. Comparable long-term graft survival based on liver graft size shows that smaller grafts could be accepted for LDLT with appropriate flow modulatory measures. Close follow-up for graft function is warranted within 3 years after liver transplantation.

Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy, are we ready for prime time?

Minimally invasive surgery potentially reduces operative morbidities. However, pure laparoscopic approaches to donor hepatectomy have been limited by technical complexity and concerns over donor safety. Reduced-wound donor hepatectomy, either in the form of a laparoscopic-assisted technique or by utilizing a mini-laparotomy wound, i.e., hybrid approach, has been developed to bridge the transition to pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy, offering some advantages of minimally invasive surgery. To date, pure laparoscopic donor left lateral sectionectomy has been validated for its safety and advantages and has become the standard in experienced centres. Pure laparoscopic approaches to major left and right liver donation have been reported for their technical feasibility in expert hands. Robotic-assisted donor hepatectomy also appears to be a valuable alternative to pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy, providing additional ergonomic advantages to the surgeon. Existing reports derive from centres with tremendous experience in both laparoscopic hepatectomy and donor hepatectomy. The complexity of these procedures means an arduous transition from technical feasibility to reproducibility. Donor safety is paramount in living donor liver transplantation. Careful donor selection and adopting standardized techniques allow experienced transplant surgeons to safely accumulate experience and acquire proficiency. An international prospective registry will advance the understanding for the role and safety of pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy.

Outcomes of right-lobe and left-lobe living-donor liver transplantations using small-for-size grafts

AIM

To analyze the outcomes of living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using left-lobe (LL) or right-lobe (RL) small-for-size (SFS) grafts.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of adult patients who underwent LDLT at our hospital in the period from January 2003 to December 2013 were reviewed. The patients were divided into the RL-LDLT group and the LL-LDLT group. The two groups were compared in terms of short- and long-term outcomes, including incidence of postoperative complication, graft function, graft survival, and patient survival. A SFS graft was defined as a graft with a ratio of graft weight (GW) to recipient standard liver volume (RSLV) (GW/RSLV) of < 50%. The Urata formula was used to estimate RSLV.

RESULTS

Totally 218 patients were included for analysis, with 199 patients in the RL-LDLT group and 19 patients in the LL-LDLT group. The two groups were similar in terms of age (median, 53 years in the RL-LDLT group and 52 years in the LL-LDLT group, P = 0.997) but had significantly different ratios of men to women (165:34 in the RL-LDLT group and 8:11 in the LL-LDLT group, P < 0.0001). The two groups were also significantly different in GW (P < 0.0001), GW/RSLV (P < 0.0001), and graft cold ischemic time (P = 0.007). When it comes to postoperative complication, the groups were comparable (P = 0.105). Five patients died in hospital, 4 (2%) in the RL-LDLT group and 1 (5.3%) in the LL-LDLT group (P = 0.918). There were 38 graft losses, 33 (16.6%) in the RL-LDLT group and 5 (26.3%) in the LL-LDLT group (P = 0.452). The 5-year graft survival rate was significantly better in the RL-LDLT group (95.2% vs 89.5%, P = 0.049). The two groups had similar 5-year patient survival rates (RL-LDLT: 86.8%, LL-LDLT: 89.5%, P = 0.476).

CONCLUSION

The use of SFS graft in LDLT requires careful tailor-made surgical planning and meticulous operation. LL-LDLT can be a good alternative to RL-LDLT with similar recipient outcomes but a lower donor risk. Further research into different patient conditions is needed in order to validate the use of LL graft.

Graft inflow modulation in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) has an incidence between 0 and 43% in small-for-size graft (SFSG) adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Portal hypertension following reperfusion and the hyperdynamic splanchnic state are reported as the major triggering factors of SFSS. Intra- and postoperative strategies to prevent or to reduce its onset are still under debate. We analyzed graft inflow modulation (GIM) during adult LDLT considering the indications, efficacy of the available techniques, changes in hemodynamics and outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library Central. Treatment outcomes including in-hospital mortality and morbidity, re-transplantation rate, 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient overall survival and 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival rates, hepatic artery and portal vein flows and pressures before and after inflow modulation were analyzed.

RESULTS

From 563 articles, 12 studies dated between 2003 and 2014 fulfilled the selection criteria and were therefore included in the study. These comprised a total of 449 adult patients who underwent inflow modulation during adult-to-adult LDLT. Types of GIM described were splenic artery ligation, splenectomy, meso-caval shunt, spleno-renal shunt, portocaval shunt, and splenic artery embolization. Mortality and morbidity ranged between 0 and 33% and 17% and 70%, respectively. Re-transplantation rates ranged between 0% and 25%. GIM was associated with good survival for both graft and recipients, reaching an 84% actuarial rate at 5 years. Through the use of GIM, irrespective of the technique, a statistically significant reduction of PVF and PVP was obtained.

CONCLUSIONS

GIM is a safe and efficient technique to avoid or limit portal hyperperfusion, especially in cases of SFSG, decreasing overall morbidity and improving outcomes.